Radeon PRO W7700 vs HD 8770M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 8770M with Radeon PRO W7700, including specs and performance data.
PRO W7700 outperforms HD 8770M by a whopping 1888% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 849 | 52 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 31.22 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 22.16 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) |
| GPU code name | Mars | Navi 32 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 1 April 2013 (13 years ago) | 13 November 2023 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 384 | 3072 |
| Core clock speed | 775 MHz | 1900 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 825 MHz | 2600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 950 million | 28,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 190 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 19.80 | 499.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6336 TFLOPS | 31.95 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 96 |
| TMUs | 24 | 192 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 48 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 768 KB |
| L1 Cache | 96 KB | 768 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 2 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 64 MB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 241 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 8-pin |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1125 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | 576.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 54
−1844%
| 1050−1100
+1844%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 0.95 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−1775%
|
150−160
+1775%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−1733%
|
110−120
+1733%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 3−4
−1733%
|
55−60
+1733%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
−1789%
|
170−180
+1789%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−1775%
|
150−160
+1775%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−1733%
|
110−120
+1733%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−1775%
|
150−160
+1775%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
−1829%
|
270−280
+1829%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−1829%
|
270−280
+1829%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
−1757%
|
130−140
+1757%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1823%
|
250−260
+1823%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−1789%
|
850−900
+1789%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
−1789%
|
170−180
+1789%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−1775%
|
150−160
+1775%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
−1881%
|
1050−1100
+1881%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−1733%
|
110−120
+1733%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
−1752%
|
500−550
+1752%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−1775%
|
150−160
+1775%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
−1829%
|
270−280
+1829%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−1829%
|
270−280
+1829%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
−1757%
|
130−140
+1757%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8
−1757%
|
130−140
+1757%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−1800%
|
95−100
+1800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1823%
|
250−260
+1823%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−1789%
|
170−180
+1789%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−1789%
|
850−900
+1789%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
−1789%
|
170−180
+1789%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−1733%
|
110−120
+1733%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
−1752%
|
500−550
+1752%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−1775%
|
150−160
+1775%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−1829%
|
270−280
+1829%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1823%
|
250−260
+1823%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−1789%
|
170−180
+1789%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−1789%
|
850−900
+1789%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
−1829%
|
270−280
+1829%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−1733%
|
110−120
+1733%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
−1805%
|
400−450
+1805%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−1700%
|
450−500
+1700%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−1700%
|
450−500
+1700%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−1800%
|
95−100
+1800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−1757%
|
130−140
+1757%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−1775%
|
75−80
+1775%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
−1800%
|
95−100
+1800%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1833%
|
290−300
+1833%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
−1823%
|
250−260
+1823%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 8−9
−1775%
|
150−160
+1775%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−1733%
|
55−60
+1733%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−1733%
|
55−60
+1733%
|
This is how HD 8770M and PRO W7700 compete in popular games:
- PRO W7700 is 1844% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.75 | 54.68 |
| Recency | 1 April 2013 | 13 November 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
PRO W7700 has a 1888% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon PRO W7700 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8770M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 8770M is a notebook graphics card while Radeon PRO W7700 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
